Search for: "LEE V. STATE" Results 3801 - 3820 of 4,621
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Sep 2012, 10:43 am by Robert Steele
App. 3d 735, 586 N.E.2d 679 (1991); see also State v. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Activists are exasperated that members of Congress and President Biden have not been able to push through federal legislation that would supersede the voting laws moving through state Legislatures across the country. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did not simply allow arbitrary actions by state actors—or not only that. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 7:53 pm by Jamie Markham
This Lee county case has a lengthy procedural history, summarized in State v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 4:00 am by Xavier Beauchamp-Tremblay
This summer, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the Google Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 5:01 am by Eric Claeys
That response takes me to an objection raised by Lee Moore. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 8:27 am by Venkat Balasubramani
"] Other aspects of the dispute that had intersting and recurring social media tweaks: other public employee cases have raised the similar issue of whether the employee was speaking as a citizen or an employee; the law is employer-favorable, but I would not be surprised to see an appeals court give her another chance (this aspect of the dispute vaguely reminds me of Bland v. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 3:26 am by Peter Mahler
Extrinsic Evidence Not Permitted to Recast Shareholder Agreement as Profit-Sharing Agreement In World Ambulette Transportation, Inc. v Lee, 161 AD3d 1028, 2018 NY Slip Op 03560 [2d Dept May 16, 2018], the plaintiff corporation sued a former employee for alleged misuse of corporate funds for personal expenses. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 12:05 pm by Kevin
State, 86 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (flimsy hollow plastic broomstick not a “deadly weapon”); Lee v. [read post]
27 May 2011, 11:00 am by Jon Tracy
 U.S. v Averette (1970) significantly changed its applicability, as the Court of Military Appeals decided that the UCMJ only applied to civilians in times of formally declared war. [read post]